memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Appointment with Danger
Removed speculation I've removed the following speculation, "This may be chalked up to the fact that T'Pol was ''dreaming the entire sequence, and therefore any inaccuracies about the movie's plot are purely hers." --Defiant (talk) 20:05, January 16, 2016 (UTC) Movie identity Congratulations on identifying this movie people. And I mean that, that was cool. But hold your horses here for a moment: I don't think the intent of the scene was to show T'Pol watching Appointment with Danger. Looking at the script info in the article, it's pretty clear that they intended to show T'Pol watching a generic/unspecified movie, and it just happened that where the script called for "TBD footage", production staff necessarily had to get it somewhere. The fact that highly specific dialog was written for a scene that called for, again, "nondescript, black & white footage from the 1940's." should be a pretty big hint too. Bottom line: This isn't an alternative version of "Appointment with Danger" in which unlike the real world version a detective dies in a house fire. Rather this is an unspecified film for which Appointment with Danger just happened to be a visual stand-in. -- Capricorn (talk) 10:52, January 17, 2016 (UTC) :I agree. That's why I've added the script info; in an effort to point this out. --Defiant (talk) 11:15, January 17, 2016 (UTC) Glad I'm not crazy. So, what to do about this? I think moving this to a new page, "Unnamed movies", might be a good way to go. Such a page would be pretty handy to have anyway, no doubt loads of stuff could find a loving home there, including those recently uploaded pics of an unidentified cartoon, and this utter attrocity of an article. Anyone else think that would be a good idea? (I'm especially curious what Thomas thinks of this issue, since he created this page) -- Capricorn (talk) 09:06, January 18, 2016 (UTC) :I disagree with moving this page. It's fine where it is, especially as we do know the name of the film. --Defiant (talk) 09:48, January 18, 2016 (UTC) So... what exactly were you agreeing with me earlier then? My whole point was basically that this film is not Appointment with Danger. -- Capricorn (talk) 10:30, January 18, 2016 (UTC) :Because I agree with stating the film originally wasn't going to be ''Appointment with Danger. I'm happy to leave it at that, now that the script info's been added. I didn't realize you were suggesting a bigger plan. --Defiant (talk) 10:49, January 18, 2016 (UTC) :...not as regards this film, anyway. On the other hand, I support your idea about the creation of an unnamed movies page, containing info about the other films, which are unnamed. If they're identified, I think they should be given a page of their own, as it currently is with this film. To do otherwise might be misleading for the reader. The unnamed movies page can link to the films that have been identified. --Defiant (talk) 10:57, January 18, 2016 (UTC) ::Capricorn, I am not sure if I understand your point completely. Sure we should have a page for the "unnamed (unidentified) movies or television programs" and it should list all which are not identified. This film was identified through the footage seen in the episode. So I don't think a move for this page seems an option. During the filming of the episode it was not clear which movie was used for the final episode but this is no longer something we talk about as Defiant identified this movie with a web source. Tom (talk) 17:23, January 18, 2016 (UTC) :::In short: This is an identified movie/etc. It should be identified. Perhaps the notes on the article need to be clarified a bit more to indicate that the movie described may not be exactly what the reality is. :::So we need an "unidentified movie" article? Likely. Will many of those be identified along the way? Also likely. Will they be identical in the Trek universe to the "real world"? Maybe not. :::Is it a good thing to have them collected for better identification overall? Definitely. -- sulfur (talk) 17:57, January 18, 2016 (UTC) :::: Just make a headcanon resolution re the note of mine above that's been removed. Dreams don't have to make sense. Or they could still have been discussing the movie they'd seen prior to A with D, which would further explain T'Pol's annoyance. --LauraCC (talk) 18:31, January 20, 2016 (UTC) This discussion seems to have more or less ended, with my suggestion defeated. But just for the record, I've thought a lot about this and I think I might have overreacted. I'm not 100% there yet, but I now believe there's a decent point to be made for keeping this here. -- Capricorn (talk) 11:18, January 21, 2016 (UTC)